mb:chebu_c._touwa_2025_mbkb_65
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| mb:chebu_c._touwa_2025_mbkb_65 [2026/08/07 04:11] – victorzhou | mb:chebu_c._touwa_2025_mbkb_65 [2026/08/21 22:40] (current) – victorzhou | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Date: 20250513 \\ | Date: 20250513 \\ | ||
| Docket: DF 22-06-00999 \\ | Docket: DF 22-06-00999 \\ | ||
| - | (St. Beniface | + | (St. Boniface |
| Reference: Chebu c. Touwa \\ | Reference: Chebu c. Touwa \\ | ||
| Citation: 2025 MBKB 65 | Citation: 2025 MBKB 65 | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| [5] The Claimant emphatically submits that the evidence of the parties in their affidavits, which were tested by cross-examination, | [5] The Claimant emphatically submits that the evidence of the parties in their affidavits, which were tested by cross-examination, | ||
| - | [6] There is no doubt that the parties had problems at home. That being the case, I am not convinced that the facts highlighted by the respondent my clear impression that the parties were not finally separated, or at all, until December 3, 2022. In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the parties' | + | [6] There is no doubt that the parties had problems at home. That being the case, I am not convinced that the facts highlighted by the respondent |
| [7] The evidence consists of five affidavits from the parties and two witnesses for the respondent. Each was subject to cross-examination. The court also received the parties' | [7] The evidence consists of five affidavits from the parties and two witnesses for the respondent. Each was subject to cross-examination. The court also received the parties' | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| - | [11] According to the legal test " | + | [11] According to the legal test " |
| < | < | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| [12] The Court has found the evidence reliable in context of the // | [12] The Court has found the evidence reliable in context of the // | ||
| - | [13] The respond | + | [13] The respondent |
| - | [14] The jurisprudence has establish | + | [14] The jurisprudence has established |
| * (a) Whether they had the intention to separate and demonstrate convincingly, | * (a) Whether they had the intention to separate and demonstrate convincingly, | ||
| * (b) Whether they had the intention to separate and communicated this intention to their partner in a coherent manner with the desire to separate (**//Field v. McLaren// | * (b) Whether they had the intention to separate and communicated this intention to their partner in a coherent manner with the desire to separate (**//Field v. McLaren// | ||
| - | [15] The separation noted in documents filed with government departments | + | [15] The separation noted in documents filed with government departments is thus relevant to the issue in this case but the intentions of the parties cannot be considered in a vacuum. |
| ==== III. FACTS ==== | ==== III. FACTS ==== | ||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
| * (e) The parties had issues in the marriage but the claimant denied that she told the respondent or Ms. Tchikantio that she decided to separate from the respondent; | * (e) The parties had issues in the marriage but the claimant denied that she told the respondent or Ms. Tchikantio that she decided to separate from the respondent; | ||
| * (f) Ms. Tchikantio described a discussion between herself and Ms. Chebu. She affirmed that the discussion took place when Ms. Tchikantio was in Cameroon. Under cross-examination, | * (f) Ms. Tchikantio described a discussion between herself and Ms. Chebu. She affirmed that the discussion took place when Ms. Tchikantio was in Cameroon. Under cross-examination, | ||
| - | * (g) A copy of the claimant' | + | * (g) A copy of the claimant' |
| * (h) Ms. Chebu discussed her marriage issues with Ms. Tchikantio and her desire to separate but this never materialized; | * (h) Ms. Chebu discussed her marriage issues with Ms. Tchikantio and her desire to separate but this never materialized; | ||
| * (i) The parties met in September 2023 and agreed to exchange their comparative declarations using a date of separation of December 1, 2022; | * (i) The parties met in September 2023 and agreed to exchange their comparative declarations using a date of separation of December 1, 2022; | ||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
| * (l) At the hearing, the respondent highlighted that some of the claimant' | * (l) At the hearing, the respondent highlighted that some of the claimant' | ||
| * (m) The evidence does not support the proposition that the claimant refused the respondent' | * (m) The evidence does not support the proposition that the claimant refused the respondent' | ||
| - | * (n) Between 2022 and 2023, the parties exchanged financial documents using a date of separation of December 1, 2022. In 2023, Mr. Touwa testify | + | * (n) Between 2022 and 2023, the parties exchanged financial documents using a date of separation of December 1, 2022. In 2023, Mr. Touwa testified |
| * (o) Additionally, | * (o) Additionally, | ||
| ==== IV. ANALYSIS ==== | ==== IV. ANALYSIS ==== | ||
| - | [19] The respondent asks the court to find that Ms. Chebu is a not credible, that her explanations do not make sense and that she has exaggerated and lied to conceal the truth that she has had the intention to separate since 2018. | + | [19] The respondent asks the court to find that Ms. Chebu is not credible, that her explanations do not make sense and that she has exaggerated and lied to conceal the truth that she has had the intention to separate since 2018. |
| - | [20] He submits that the date of separation is obvious given the Ms. Chebu' | + | [20] He submits that the date of separation is obvious given Ms. Chebu' |
| [21] Mr. Touwa' | [21] Mr. Touwa' | ||
| Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
| [30] The parties stopped sleeping in the same room after April 12, 2020, but the uncontested evidence shows that they continued to act as partners by sharing a family home in all other ways until the start of December 2022. | [30] The parties stopped sleeping in the same room after April 12, 2020, but the uncontested evidence shows that they continued to act as partners by sharing a family home in all other ways until the start of December 2022. | ||
| - | [31] Up until December 2022, the evidence demonstrates that the parties continued to live in the family home, took care of their children, bought food for the family, prepared meals and went out into the community with their children. In 2019 and in October 2022 when the claimant travelled to the Cameroon, it was the respondent drove the the claimant to and picked her up from the airport. There was no evidence that they began relationships with other partners before 2023. | + | [31] Up until December 2022, the evidence demonstrates that the parties continued to live in the family home, took care of their children, bought food for the family, prepared meals and went out into the community with their children. In 2019 and in October 2022 when the claimant travelled to Cameroon, it was the respondent |
| === Social activities / societal image of the couple === | === Social activities / societal image of the couple === | ||
| Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
| [32] The parties continued to participate in the same social activities, including activities with their friends and in the community and while including their children. | [32] The parties continued to participate in the same social activities, including activities with their friends and in the community and while including their children. | ||
| - | [33] Mr. Touwa, Ms. Tchikantio and Mr. Ndonko testified that the parties had problems which were subjects of discussion between the parties. Neither Ms. Tchikantio nor Mr. Ndonko were informed | + | [33] Mr. Touwa, Ms. Tchikantio and Mr. Ndonko testified that the parties had problems which were subjects of discussion between the parties. Neither Ms. Tchikantio nor Mr. Ndonko were informed that the parties decided to separate and the parties did not inform each other on their decision. |
| - | [34] Mr. Ndonko is Mr. Touwa' | + | [34] Mr. Ndonko is Mr. Touwa' |
| - | [35] Like Mr. Ndonko, Ms. Tchikantio had never visited Canada. They both had no first-hand knowledge of the parties' | + | [35] Like Mr. Ndonko, Ms. Tchikantio had never visited Canada. They both had no first-hand knowledge of the parties' |
| === Financial support === | === Financial support === | ||
| - | [36] The evidence shows no changes in their bank accounts, which were always maintained separately since the start of their relationship. Neither the fact that the respondent was not aware of the amount of the claimant' | + | [36] The evidence shows no changes in their bank accounts, which were always maintained separately since the start of their relationship. Neither the fact that the respondent was not aware of the amount of the claimant' |
| === Children === | === Children === | ||
| - | [37] The children were not aware of the separation, according to the evidence, before the claimant shared her plans to rent new housing in December 2022. The respondent never divulged the change in the relationship to the children. In fact, what was said on behalf of the respondent is that he continued to act in the same way to towards the children. He was not aware of any discussions that he had with the children on the topic of separation. | + | [37] The children were not aware of the separation, according to the evidence, before the claimant shared her plans to rent new housing in December 2022. The respondent never divulged the change in the relationship to the children. In fact, what was said on behalf of the respondent is that he continued to act in the same way towards the children. He was not aware of any discussions that he had with the children on the topic of separation. |
| [38] It is of note that in 2023, the respondent was waiting for 2019 documents from the claimant to determine his next steps. His waiting for historical documents that he did not have at the time, shows that he did not have the essential element, according to //McMilan// //(and other case law noted above)// - communication and knowledge of the claimant' | [38] It is of note that in 2023, the respondent was waiting for 2019 documents from the claimant to determine his next steps. His waiting for historical documents that he did not have at the time, shows that he did not have the essential element, according to //McMilan// //(and other case law noted above)// - communication and knowledge of the claimant' | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
| ==== VI. DECISION ==== | ==== VI. DECISION ==== | ||
| - | [40] The date of separation is established to be December 3, 2022. I ask Mr. Nagy to draft the order. If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they have leave to seek an order from the court. To do so, a party may schedule a hearing with the Court. | + | [40] The date of separation is established to be December 3, 2022. I ask Ms. Nagy to draft the order. If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they have leave to seek an order from the court. To do so, a party may schedule a hearing with the Court. |
| - | %%______________________%% | + | %%______________________%% |
| Judge of the Court of King's Bench | Judge of the Court of King's Bench | ||
mb/chebu_c._touwa_2025_mbkb_65.1786075917.txt.gz · Last modified: by victorzhou